• N.S.A. Plan to Log Calls Is Reauthorized by Court
    39 replies, posted
[quote]WASHINGTON — The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court released a new legal opinion on Friday that reauthorized the once-secret National Security Agency program that keeps records of every American’s phone calls. The opinion also sought to plug a hole in a similar ruling made public last month. In the six-page opinion, which was signed on Oct. 11, Judge Mary A. McLaughlin said she was personally approving for the first time the extension of the call log metadata program, which must be approved every 90 days. But she wrote that she endorsed a lengthy legal opinion written by a colleague, Judge Claire V. Eagan, who was the previous judge to approve extending it. Judge Eagan’s opinion, which was made public last month, held that the N.S.A. could lawfully collect the bulk data about all Americans’ calls without warrants, in part because of a 1979 case, Smith v. Maryland. In that matter, the Supreme Court held that call records were not protected by the Fourth Amendment because suspects had exposed that metadata to their phone companies and had no reasonable expectation of privacy. Judge Eagan’s opinion has been criticized, in part, because she made no mention of a landmark privacy case decided by the Supreme Court in 2012. That case, United States v. Jones, held that it was unconstitutional for the police to use a G.P.S. tracking device to monitor a suspect’s movements without a warrant. Although the Supreme Court decided the case on narrow grounds — citing that the police had to trespass on the suspect’s property when installing the device — five of the nine justices separately called into question whether the 1979 precedent was valid in an era of modern technology. They suggested that the automated long-term collection of data about someone’s location might raise Fourth Amendment issues even though each individual movement is disclosed to other people. In her new opinion, Judge McLaughlin acknowledged the existence of the 2012 case but explained why she did not think it was relevant. First, she said, that case involved physical location, not communication links. And second, she said, the Supreme Court had decided the case on different grounds and did not fully consider the broader issue.[/quote] [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/19/us/nsa-plan-to-log-calls-is-renewed-by-court.html?ref=us[/url]
Oh cool, now it ISN'T illegal surveillance
They sure love their phone sex, don't they
who wants to have a 3 hour convo about sex that is completely explosive and bombing.
Looks like none of you read the article, they're not logging the content of your calls. They're logging who you called and when (something which is already done by your phone provider). There is no spying here.
[QUOTE=popbob;42579061]Looks like none of you read the article, they're not logging the content of your calls. They're logging who you called and when (something which is already done by your phone provider). There is no spying here.[/QUOTE] why do they need to know who i'm calling
[QUOTE=CubeManv2;42579017]who wants to have a 3 hour convo about sex that is completely explosive and bombing.[/QUOTE] It will be a scandal to be remembered CubeManv2.
[QUOTE=popbob;42579061]They're logging who you called and when.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=popbob;42579061]There is no spying here.[/QUOTE] How can you say these things together?
[QUOTE=kariko;42579153]How can you say these things together?[/QUOTE] Because your phone provider already does this. There has never been privacy as to who you call.
[QUOTE=popbob;42579177]Because your phone provider already does this. There has never been privacy as to who you call.[/QUOTE] because that's a consensual business agreement between me and my phone provider. i acknowledged they would know who i'm calling when i signed up with their services. if i didn't agree i wouldn't use their service. the federal government has no business in it and i didn't agree that they could have that information.
[QUOTE=popbob;42579177]Because your phone provider already does this. There has never been privacy as to who you call.[/QUOTE] Actually yes there is. For that information to be obtained by ANYONE ELSE before this shit, they had to get a court warrant. As SgtCr4zy said, it's a business agreement between me and my phone provider, not me and every two bit government agent that wants to know.
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;42579196]because that's a consensual business agreement between me and my phone provider. i acknowledged they would know who i'm calling when i signed up with their services. if i didn't agree i wouldn't use their service. the federal government has no business in it and i didn't agree that they could have that information.[/QUOTE] This is you being willfully ignorant then. The law has never seen who you called as private, courts have [url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57596287-83/court-no-warrant-needed-to-search-cell-phone-records/]ruled in the past against requiring a warrant to access phone records[/url] too. [editline]19th October 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=draugur;42579231]Actually yes there is. For that information to be obtained by ANYONE ELSE before this shit, they had to get a court warrant.[/QUOTE] Congrats, you're wrong.
[QUOTE=popbob;42579239]This is you being willfully ignorant then. The law has never seen who you called as private, courts have [url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57596287-83/court-no-warrant-needed-to-search-cell-phone-records/]ruled in the past against requiring a warrant to access phone records[/url] too. [editline]19th October 2013[/editline] Congrats, you're wrong.[/QUOTE] i don't give a shit if a rubber stamp tells me it's "legal" it's still unethical and they still have no business knowing who i call.
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;42579276]i don't give a shit if a rubber stamp tells me it's "legal" it's still unethical and they still have no business knowing who i call.[/QUOTE] OK, but it doesn't matter what you think is unethical of not. They're allowed to do this and have been for a long time, by encouraging otherwise shows that you don't understand the issue or have a vested interest in it (ie. you're a criminal or do some very unethical things).
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;42579276]i don't give a shit if a rubber stamp tells me it's "legal" it's still unethical and they still have no business knowing who i call.[/QUOTE] It's sort of funny how laws and canon ethics are arbitrarily defined by a small minority of people, and in this case generally going against nearly universal public opinion. Weeeee, Dystopian implications, the future is now! :eng101:
[QUOTE=popbob;42579293]OK, but it doesn't matter what you think is unethical of not. They're allowed to do this and have been for a long time, by encouraging otherwise shows that you don't understand the issue or have a vested interest in it (ie. you're a criminal or do some very unethical things).[/QUOTE] ah yes, the old "obviously you're a criminal who has something to hide!!!" argument. form a better argument please. [editline]19th October 2013[/editline] just curious who were the last 10 people you called, popbob?
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;42579557]It's sort of funny how laws and canon ethics are arbitrarily defined by a small minority of people, and in this case generally going against nearly universal public opinion. Weeeee, Dystopian implications, the future is now! :eng101:[/QUOTE] Careful so they don't oppress you with all that knowledge about who you've called.
Of course they did. The FISA courts exist explicitly to do EXACTLY THIS. If they fail to do this, then they all get fired because nobody needs them anymore. They exist to violate constitutional protections.
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;42579870]ah yes, the old "obviously you're a criminal who has something to hide!!!" argument. form a better argument please. [/quote] It says a lot about my 'bad' argument if all you can do is dance around it. :^) [quote] just curious who were the last 10 people you called, popbob?[/QUOTE] That's none of your business, and there is no law saying that who I've called has to be revealed to you. There's a difference between entrusting this information with the government compared to entrusting it to random liberal teenagers on the internet.
[QUOTE=popbob;42579914]It says a lot about my 'bad' argument if all you can do is dance around it. :^)[/QUOTE] well i don't see why i need to dignify a response to an argument that's basically "you're a criminal because you don't want the government to know your phone records!" [quote]That's none of your business, and there is no law saying that who I call has to be revealed to you. There's a difference between entrusting this information with the government compared to entrusting it to random liberal teenagers on the internet.[/quote] what? have something to hide you fucking criminal? what difference would that be?
The machine seems alive and well.
Not just any court. The FISA is a secret court. In the NSA.
[QUOTE=popbob;42579914]It says a lot about my 'bad' argument if all you can do is dance around it. :^) That's none of your business, and there is no law saying that who I've called has to be revealed to you. There's a difference between entrusting this information with the government compared to entrusting it to random liberal teenagers on the internet.[/QUOTE] [quote]The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized[/quote] If you are the government, you need a specific reason and a specific place to search. Making a phone call does not constitute probable cause.
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;42579936]well i don't see why i need to dignify a response to an argument that's basically "you're a criminal because you don't want the government to know your phone records!"[/quote] your government also knows where you live, is that unethical? [quote]what? have something to hide you fucking criminal? what difference would that be?[/QUOTE] are you going to arrest him?
[QUOTE=Glent;42579960]your government also knows where you live, is that unethical?[/quote] lol do you really not see the difference between knowing where i live (for the purposes of contacting me, taxing me etc) and knowing who i call (something i do on my own personal time between me and a private party)? [quote]are you going to arrest him?[/QUOTE] obviously he has something to hide because he won't tell me who he called. that's literally what his argument was towards me.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;42580007]Watching people have sex in their bedroom because you are hiding in the closet is unethical. Watching a movie they recorded and put online is not unethical.[/QUOTE] Recording phone calls without people's permission is unethical - knowing that person A called person B means nothing to the government unless they are already investigating one or the other, in which case all they know is that person A called person B. [QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;42580002]lol do you really not see the difference between knowing where i live (for the purposes of contacting me, taxing me etc) and knowing who i call (something i do on my own personal time between me and a private party)?[/QUOTE] Are bank records showing when you have spent or withdrawn money unethical too? The government doesn't care if you just happen to be buying some things, but if they are already investigating you then maybe they will look into it if it is relevant to what they are investigating. [quote]obviously he has something to hide because he won't tell me who he called. that's literally what his argument was towards me.[/quote] better tell the nsa then
[QUOTE=popbob;42579293](ie. you're a criminal or do some very unethical things).[/QUOTE] Nope I actually just don't like people I didn't agree to allow to see my personal information to see it. What a shock.
[QUOTE=Glent;42580045]Recording phone calls without people's permission is unethical - knowing that person A called person B means nothing to the government unless they are already investigating one or the other, in which case all they know is that person A called person B.[/QUOTE] if the government wants information they need a reason, not "oh it's mundane and harmless info who cares" if that's the case then why is so damn important for them to know? [quote]Are bank records showing when you have spent money unethical too?[/quote] bank records are only taken if i used a credit/debit/check, all of which are provided by a bank that i CHOOSE TO USE AS A SERVICE. plus that information is between me and my bank, the government would need a search warrant to look through them. do you understand yet or are you still going to purposely miss the point? [quote]better tell the nsa then[/quote] troll harder.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;42580054]If it meant nothing why are they collecting the data? For fun? And I'm pretty sure bank records are between 1 party and the bank.[/QUOTE] They are collecting the data in case they ever need it for an investigation. Why is it unethical for the government to have access to information but not a private organisation? [quote]bank records are only taken if i used a credit/debit/check, all of which are provided by a bank that i CHOOSE TO USE AS A SERVICE. plus that information is between me and my bank, the government would need a search warrant to look through them. do you understand yet or are you still going to purposely miss the point?[/quote] I don't see why it's a bad thing for the government to have access to information, they are not going to use it to harm you for fun. [QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;42580096]"just in case" isn't a valid reason for mass surveillance. if an investigation comes up they can get the information then if it's necessary and a warrant is given. because you can choose not to associate with the private organization if you don't want them to know certain things. you can't choose to have the government not spy on you. this is really not complicated.[/QUOTE] Are you also against e.g. CCTV surveillance? Is that also unethical? As long as the government isn't misusing information I don't see how there is any reason to be afraid of them having it. [QUOTE=RenegadeCop;42580101]Why are you so dense? I'm gonna stop replying, you're one of [I]those[/I] people.[/QUOTE] Dismissing people who disagree with you as one of [I]those crazies [/I]is not a healthy way to have a discussion.
[QUOTE=Glent;42580074]They are collecting the data in case they ever need it for an investigation. Why is it unethical for the government to have access to information but not a private organisation?[/QUOTE] "just in case" isn't a valid reason for mass surveillance. if an investigation comes up they can get the information then if it's necessary and a warrant is given. because you can choose not to associate with the private organization if you don't want them to know certain things. you can't choose to have the government not spy on you. this is really not complicated.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.